ISSN 20799705, Regional Research of Russia, 2015, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 66–72. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2015. Original Russian Text © N.D. Vavilina, I.A. Skalaban, 2014, published in Region: Ekonomika i Sotsiologiya, 2014, No. 1 (81), pp. 145–162.
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Social Mapping as a Tool for Public Participation N. D. Vavilinaa and I. A. Skalabanb a
b
New Siberian Institute, Novosibirsk, Russia Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk, Russia email:
[email protected],
[email protected] Received May 14, 2013
Abstract—Strengthening of the project aspects of social management makes it important to search for mech anisms to involve the population in local and regional development with a view to the peculiarities of the inhabitants’ perception of the territory and community, formal and informal traditions, and the practices of assistance and participation. The article considers spatial research methods rarely used in the Russian prac tice—joint social mapping. The prospects of using joint social mapping for diagnostics and stimulation of public participation in local socioterritorial communities, its strategy, and procedure are analyzed. It has been shown that the expert position of residents in developing a map makes it possible not only to obtain empirical data on the nature of territorial identity, territorial interests, potential tensions and conflicts, and the practices of public participation in a socioterritorial context, but also to form “areas of agreement”. It also involves res idents in local and regional development. In turn, maps, by designing the common symbolic space and mak ing possible a “full description,” may constitute public and objectified images of the territory. Referring to experience of use in a study of two urban settlements in Novosibirsk oblast, the authors note the prospects of its application at the initial stage of research and design in local socioterritorial communities. The potential and nature of public participation in this case is analyzed via the participation of citizens in the mapping pro cedure and its results, as well as the deciphering and interpretation of meanings inherent in the maps. Keywords: public participation, social participation, social mapping, socioterritorial community, local com munity, rural settlement. DOI: 10.1134/S2079970515010116
prospects of its use to stimulate public participation of
World experience shows that the orientation of many settlements toward sustainable development of their territories and the creation of a modern service economy cannot be implemented without stimulation of social and economic activities of inhabitants or without the formation of institutions for proactive mobilization and public participation. In addition, in order to achieve institutional sustainability and real involvement of the population in solving socially important problems of a settlement, the vectors of public participation should have both vertical (partici pation of the population in local selfgovernment— civil participation) and horizontal (participation in structured and unstructured collective activities undertaken as a part of routine life and oriented toward serving the public interest—social participa tion) direction.
*
the population in the development of territories. Today, interest in social mapping stems from the same peculiarities of social processes that determined the growth of sociologists’ interest in the spatial and geographical parameters of social change in general. First is the increase in sampling of social time and in the “project” nature of social development with the inevitable actualization of horizontal links and net work structures under these conditions. As N.E. Pok rovskii mentioned, today life projects are becoming more and more shortterm; they change the orienta tion in development trajectories, demonstrating new forms of participation in global phenomena [2]. Like never before, the project nature of activities actualizes the need to diagnose a situation and define the objec tives both at the level of network relations between individuals and groups and at the level of social man agement of local communities and settlements. In this respect, joint social mapping appears espe cially promising. It suggests the possibility of graphical
Joint social mapping is one method enabling diag nosis of solidarity processes and the nature of public participation in a settlement, even making it possible to influence them with a view toward the specifics of social and spatial factors of the settlement [1]. This article has analyzed the experience of using social mapping as a tool for primary diagnostics and the
* The
survey was conducted in March–June 2012 with the sup port of the government of Novosibirsk oblast (competition of public initiatives) and Novosibirsk State Technical University.
66
SOCIAL MAPPING AS A TOOL FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
representation or consistent description of concepts of social and sociospatial objects and processes by their representation in the form of maps. Traditionally, the method is used for instrumental purposes at the initial level of working with population in compact local socioterritorial communities of cities and relatively small settlements. Visibility, identifiability, orderliness, readability of information about an object [3], and its understand ability both for an informant of any age and education and for the end user are the benefits of mapping as a way of reflecting reality. It is no coincidence that some researchers refer maplike models, along with liter acy and numeracy, to the category of cultural uni versals [4]. However, joint social mapping as a technology and a product differs from the classical mapping in certain significant characteristics. First, it is sketchy; i.e., it is an arbitrary spatial representation by a group of indi viduals without regard to the scale and established car tographic symbols. Being both an arbitrary and a rela tively structured product, the sketch map represents group perception of a spatial object that encompasses the subjective semantic space of both individuals and the group in general. However, being a product of col lective creativity, maps reflect the relatively stable views of their creators about sociospatial zones; i.e., they are public and, to a certain extent, objectified images of the territory. According to K. Lynch, these maps are “a kind of areas of agreement” arising between informants “in cooperation with common material reality, common culture, and the basic physi ological community” [3, p. 18]. Second, in joint mapping, not only the map itself but also the procedure of its creation [5] are the focus of the research, making possible, according to C. Geertz referring in turn to G. Ryle, a “full descrip tion” [6, p. 12]. During work on the map, arbitrary explanations, reasoning, and comments of residents that decipher the “subjective meanings inherent in mental maps” [7, p. 76] become the object of study. Third, the map serves a dual function: it is not only an independent source of information, it also stimu lates discussion, “structuring the residents’ imagina tion” [8, p. 189], playing the role of a creative visual cue, encouraging the participants to engage in dia logue at the early stage of the project, and aiding the problematization of various aspects of life of the pop ulation and a settlement. Accordingly, the mapping procedure itself is a way of constructing the common symbolic space and new knowledge for all partici pants—the agreedupon image of the community, the current situation, and the diversity of formalized and unformalized practices of assistance and participation in the community. This approach to collecting, systematizing, and analyzing the obtained graphic images and narratives is based on the socioconstructionist understanding of reality as one reproduced by people in the process of its REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 5
No. 1
67
interpretation. This determines the main methodical feature of the mapping: learning and at the same time constructing the social reality. The mapping focuses on achieving two interrelated purposes: the diagnos tics of socioterritorial community and the mobiliza tion of internal social resources of the inhabitants involved in the mapping. The latter is particularly important if diagnostics is a part of the project activi ties related to the development of the settlement, assuming targeted social intervention. In this case, the form of a community’s mobilization potential is par ticularly significant. It can be obtained and assessed to attract local residents to create maps by actualizing a resident’s position as a subject capable of assessing processes occurring in the settlement and of acting on them. In this context, the joint mapping procedure per forms simultaneous workshop functions. Describing the landscape of participation in a spatial and tempo ral context, the residents tell stories about the village, people, traditions of joint activities, and daily rural practices of participation in solving socially important issues. They discuss problems for and risks to the com munity and territory and their prospects for develop ment. They express, simultaneously comparing, clari fying, and reconciling with the opinion of others, their attitude to local resources or problems [9, 10] and bar riers to participation [11]. Holding the position of experts and telling uninformed but interested modera tors about the settlement, the residents are involved in discussing even those issues on which there is no con sensus in the community. The session itself acts as a kind of social simulator to develop dialogue skills and stimulate the formation of participants’ subjectivity by elevating their importance in the emerging group rela tionship system. Certainly, the expression of subjectiv ity in the mapping procedure has a situational charac ter. However, listening in a psychologically safe envi ronment to each other’s opinions on the overall picture of life in the settlement and intensifying the views of the community, the participants show the aiming for their own legitimation and signification activity (production of meanings, assertions, and worldviews). It stimulates them to overrun the group’s borders into a wider system of relations that involves them or where they can pretend to participate [12]. Therefore, the objects of analysis for researchers are both the map itself and its creation process, in par ticular, the procedure of plotting information, the nature of communication between participants during mapping work, their personal involvement in the described practices of participation, and subsequent readiness for cooperation. In the future, the informa tion obtained in the course of mapping can be com pleted by data from indepth interviews with other res idents of the settlement, local authorities, the results of brief surveys about traditions, standards of cooper ation and mobility, the level of credibility, satisfaction with neighbor relations, etc. 2015
68
VAVILINA, SKALABAN
The testing of joint mapping technology took place in two district centers in Novosibirsk oblast: Ordyn skoye and Suzun. The choice of these settlements was conditioned by their relatively comparable sizes (10000 and 15000 residents, respectively), the same natural and climatic conditions (both settlements are located near a forest area), relative distance from Novosibirsk, as well as similar purposes in socioeco nomic development (they focus on development of tourist and recreational areas). During the study, there were six sessions of joint mapping, three sessions in each settlement, in which 62 people participated in total. The informants were selected by a quota principle in age intervals of 18–28, 29–49, and 50–70 years, and by the target principle— activity. The features of activity were the experience of formalized or unformalized social participation, the informant’s referentiality for the group of residents, the high level of contacts in the community. The infor mants were recruited on the basis of recommendations of local authorities, heads of public associations, and active residents that previously participated in semi standardized interviews, as well as on the basis of their mentioning in context of socially important activities on unofficial sites of the settlements and in social net works. In foreign practice of joint mapping, the direct invitation of residents is also widely used [11]. Relying on on the opinion of V.L. Glazychev et al., the use of such a method in local communities in Russian prac tice rather leads to subjects “with whom working is laborious, but unproductive” [13, p. 28]. Therefore, we rejected this option. The objectives of the study included both primary diagnostics of the community and settlement on the prospect of involving the population in the develop ment of the territory, and stimulation of solidarity pro cesses, as well as organizing readiness for social dia logue and participation of residents–participants of the mapping procedure. The content structure of the session involved joint reconstruction of images of the community and the settlement; diagnostics of social problems of the settlement, manifestation of which by informants was considered as a demonstration of their socioterritorial interests; description of practices and the participation landscape (subjects, character, and orientation in regard to allocation of responsibility and the nature of interactions within the community and local authorities). The level of credibility of potential participants in the settlement was determined individ ually by informants with a rating scale before the map ping procedure. We predicted the nature of and prospects for social participation of residents of the settlement based on the following parameters—the number of mentioned social practices; the breadth of the repertoire (the qualitative variety of participation spheres, the level of formalization, and the breadth of involvement of inhabitants); the ratio between personal experience
and stories about other people in the reports; the approval of described practices by the participants; readiness to participate in such practices in the future; the level and character of credibility of the main sub jects of participation, etc. In order to compare and evaluate the informative ness and the character of representation of the mate rial collected by joint mapping and to identify infor mal leaders and reference persons in the settlement, initially some semistandardized individual interviews with active residents and government representatives were conducted (34 individual interviews: 28 with res idents and 6 with representatives of local authorities). Comparison of semantic series for several key posi tions of the study (image of a settlement and its prob lems) has shown that by both qualitative diversity and frequency of references, the data obtained as a result of the mapping did not significantly differ from the data obtained in all individual interviews. This is evidence of the significantly higher informativeness of the empirical material obtained by using the method of mapping. The character of participation of the invited resi dents in the mapping procedure has shown their readi ness to discuss issues related to the life of the settle ment and community and their interest in it. Although at first if there was conflict potential in the views of participants of certain mapping sessions, in the course of discussion, the interest in the point of issue and the necessity to follow the accepted rules forced the par ticipants to develop means of positive communica tion, to listen each other, and to accommodate their views, gradually creating the common picture of life of the community and the settlement. The starting element of diagnostics was an analysis of the character of territorial identity of informants, particularly its cognitive (the image of the community and the settlement), affective, and value components as the awareness and perception of its inhabitants of their solidarity. As I.A. Klimov mentioned, “the for mation of a common identity is a kind of “establish ment of a theory,” based on which for me and a certain number of people the statement “he/she is the same as me” becomes natural and well founded” [12, p. 86]. Not only the logic of the research, aimed at recon structing the sociospatial characteristics of the com munity and the settlement, but also the logic of train ing the informants to collaborate required an analysis of the territorial identity. The emergence of zones of acceptance in relation to this ensured balanced partic ipation in the further discussion by residents of various degrees of activity, social statuses, and genders. The study of the empirical material collected in the analysis of maps and transcriptions has shown a dependence between the important (for the partici pants) components of the settlement’s image as a cog nitive component of the identity and practices of pub lic participation, which the informants mentioned. However, the selection and interpretation of the prac
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 5
No. 1
2015
SOCIAL MAPPING AS A TOOL FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
tices were determined by generational affiliation, as well as economic and social activities of the partici pants. This can be seen in the informants’ description of the borders of the socioterritorial community. The ideas of inhabitants about “our” and “their” territories in most cases do not coincide with the administrative boundaries of settlements. Inhabitants of the settlement of Ordynskoye consider three municipalities—Ordynskoye, Chernakovo, and partly Vagaitsevo—as a single socioterritorial community. At the same time, they perceive the connection between Chernakovo and Ordynskoye as closer. In a compari son of maps of various generational groups, from the older age group to the younger and from indigenous inhabitants to aliens, expansion and simultaneous dis placement of the boundaries of the settlement are seen. The displacement occurs where there are no clear toponymic restrictions, but there is active indi vidual building, including by youth, with support of social programs. In this territory, the participants of younger and middleage groups noted the highest number of informal practices of social participation in addressing the problems of beautification and chil dren’s leisure organization. Simultaneously from the maps of the older age group to the younger, a reduction in the borders at the other end of the settlement is observed. According to the maps of the middle and youngerage groups, the settlement’s border passes along construction lines of cottages of wealthy citizens, while for the maps the older age group, it includes the river and a large terri tory on the other bank denoted “ski trails.” Restricted access for the settlement’s residents to these territories led to a decrease in the social significance of the latter. This is manifested in the “exclusion” of these territo ries and traditional localresident winter recreation areas beyond them from the mental image of the set tlement, which resulted in the absence of these objects on the map. As a consequence, an insignificant num ber of practices of participation in this territory is mentioned by the informants. Despite the fact that the settlement of Suzun is more clearly defined geographically, bordered by for est, and its boundaries are not adjacent to other settle ments, the mapping participants in this settlement demonstrate weak conventional unity and vaguer views of the settlement’s boundaries. Here, the change in notions of the settlement’s size is more pronounced, which decrease from the maps of the older age group to the maps of the younger. This tendency is observed in certain territories in the settlement of Ordynskoye too. It is especially pronounced in territories that in past decades were objects of traditional economic development and production activity. In general, analysis of image of the area repre sented by the mapping participants in both settlements has shown that this image is based primarily on the value and recognition of natural but not anthropo genic objects. For example, the total number of men REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 5
No. 1
69
tions of all urbanplanning, economic, and sociocul tural objects by inhabitants of the settlement of Ordyn skoye is less than the number of cases when they mentioned natural objects. It is no coincidence that exactly in this settlement the highest concern of resi dents in relation to environmental issues has been recorded, which they closely link with the problems of beautification, purity of forests and riverbanks. The participants reacted vehemently to the alienation of these objects, limitation of their public availability, and illegitimate or inefficient economic activity related to forest zones. However, the significance of natural objects in the studied settlements differs for informants from various generational groups. In the settlement of Ordynskoye, the nature factor remains relevant to all age groups. Moreover a tendency to expand the spatial boundaries of the settlement’s image, including towards the forest range on the other bank of the Ob River is represented in the maps of the younger age group. The forest for the mapping participant of all ages has mainly a recre ational function. This is confirmed by the nature of approved practices of public activities on these territo ries. Supposedly, this should boost solidarity in the com munity and encourage proactive mobilization pro cesses. However, the value of the same natural objects and related expectations of various generational groups—when there is a low general awareness of the population and weak possibility of influencing deci sionmaking processes under intensifying economic activity—create social tension and conflict. In map ping, this was obvious from the opposing positions of the older and younger age groups on the prospective development of Lunevka park in Ordynskoye, as well as from their negative attitudes towards each other. The discussion between the two generational groups about whether the park should be a youth leisure cen ter or a quiet recreational area shows the need to zone natural complexes in the territory in accordance with the interests of various social and generational groups. At the same time, it shows the readiness of the popula tion to participate in the development of park com plexes. As a result, the repertoire of active participa tion of Ordynskoye residents, mentioned as approved, varies the most in the range from informal to formal ized, and from consensual to protest, precisely in the environmental field. Meanwhile, protest actions in the eyes of the mapping participants fit various forms of dialogue with local authorities wanting to establish deputy and public control over timber cutting, evi dence that confrontation is still constructive. In another case (the settlement of Suzun), the opposite process is observed—the disappearance of the forest from the map of the settlement. For the older generation, the pinewood is simultaneously of economic, spiritual, and esthetic value. They have sta ble notions about traditional economic practices and individual forms of social participation, carried out in 2015
70
VAVILINA, SKALABAN
accordance with sustainable informal standards, envi ronmental protection rules, and guidelines for natural resource use. In the middleage group’s views on nature, a certain reduction in the significance of the economic value of pinewood with simultaneous strengthening of the value of its recreational function can be seen. The sensitivity of this age group in rela tion to the forest as a recreational resource was reflected in the worry about its quality and purity, as well as in the demonstration of certain readiness to participate in clearance of the pinewood. It is the only group that labeled the boundaries of settlement at the map with the waste landfills at the pinewood territory. On the map depicted by the young informants, there is no pinewood. It is not used as a toponymic landmark for boundaries, although it is located around the set tlement. At the same time, the reduction has been observed in the repertoire of social practices men tioned by youth with respect to using pinewood as a recreational resource. Only places that are associated with water and can be used for leisure and short rest retain value for youth. As a result, among the forms of participation men tioned by the informants from Suzun, unlike with the informants from Ordynskoye, the share of activities aimed at solving environmental problems is extremely small. These practices are often not related to the per sonal participation experience of the informant. The number of mentions of initiative actions to address environmental problems in the system of unformal ized relations is insignificant, and these actions differ slightly in content. As for anthropogenic objects and their impact on the image of the territory, the mapping results have shown that in relation to the settlement’s residents, they are now not nearly as represented by economic as by cultural and social objects oriented largely toward children and childhood. It is remarkable that the informants themselves drew attention to this disparity and formulated as serious the problems affecting the development prospects of the settlement, the lack of adult leisure infrastructure, and the inactivity of resi dents for whom family values are more important than community values. Criticizing the residents for the reduction in social solidarity in the socioterritorial community, many of the informants, however, con sider that social solidarity exists outside their personal social space and it does not bind their children’s future to this territory. The temporal characteristics of the settlement’s image, as well as their orientation toward the past, present, or future, may serve as an important indicator of outlook of population activity. For example, char acterizing the objects plotted on the map, the infor mants from Suzun, much more often than the infor mants from Ordynskoye, mentioned previous suc cesses and achievements related to these objects, emotionally describing their settlement in the past as one of the most developed in Novosibirsk oblast. This
“commitment to the past,” together with rare men tions of the future and prospects of territorial develop ment, especially among the members of the economi cally and socially active middle generational group, can become a barrier to successful social mobilization of the population. However, the habitual sociohistori cal sensitivity of the settlement’s residents should be considered when designing territory development projects. There is a frequent tendency of informants to compare the settlement with other territories, which, according to N.Yu. Zamyatina, is an indirect sign of immaturity of the modern “image formation” of its inhabitants [14, p. 210]. The highest readiness for discussion and activity among the mapping participants came from a module aimed at discussing the problems of the settlement’s population. Analysis has shown that today the problem of economic survival is not as serious as the problem of assuring quality of life. The main qualityoflife marker for the informants was beautification—clean liness of settlements and surrounding areas, planting greenery on the streets, quality of roads, lighting, and the quality of social and, especially, sociocultural ser vices. In turn, the transformation of the environment carried out in the settlements with a certain degree of activity, in particular, the implementation of beautifi cation projects by local authorities, also affects the actors, the intensity, and the quality of communica tions in the community. For example, the appearance of a fountain and asphalt pavement on the central street of Suzun and the beautification of the center in Ordynskoye are positively evaluated by the infor mants, first, as new spaces for communication and as promising centers of contacts between people. The same criteria are present in the evaluation of events. The mapping participants see the main positive result of festivals and celebrations in the fact that “people finally began to go out” and “communicate more.” It seems that this demonstrates the request for sol idarity implicitly presenting among the informants from both settlements. An important part of the mapping procedure as a tool for public participation is the joint reconstruction by informants of the existing landscape of participa tion in a settlement; i.e. subjects, mechanisms, and rules. From the viewpoint of the mapping experts that used this method to involve residents in territorial development projects [11], joint reconstruction enables residents to realize how diversified the existing forms of participation are; how the practice of initia tive, socially oriented individual and collective actions changes the nature of social networks within which activity is exercised; and how it affects the wider sys tem of relations and capability of actions. Subjectivity arises from the public participation practices as a set of agentbased and practical characteristics of a commu nity of people.
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 5
No. 1
2015
SOCIAL MAPPING AS A TOOL FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The selection and systematization of participation practices mentioned by the informants as approved have demonstrated that the absolute priority in the set tlement falls on social participation oriented toward maintenance of existing features of the settlement rather than toward development. The participation practices, as well as the groups that form in the course of joint activity, are institutionally unstable and weakly influence administrative decision making. A signifi cant part of these practices is directly or indirectly ini tiated by local authorities. The tight control of local authorities often leads to the bottleneck phenomenon, when interaction within the community, for example, between a religious community and entrepreneurs, can be carried out by local authorities. This causes a reduction in the responsiveness of local authorities [12, 15], which stymies the network of public commu nication and interaction. It weakens the conversa tional ability of other members of the community and their ability to defend their interests. However, a change in participation traditions and strengthening of differentiation of participation sub jects according to generational groups are observed. If the informants of the older generation are oriented mainly toward formal groups—government authori ties, nongovernmental organizations, and political parties, which are also reflected in the structure of the public sector of settlements, the informants of the younger generation focus more on informal relations and groups, which are mainly characteristic of remote communities and groups. This is also confirmed by the character of interactions in the system “authorities– inhabitants of the settlement.” The system of non profit organizations and associations in which de facto clublike unions prevail is not actually oriented toward youth. An estimative and full of social fears view of the youth presents often in the arguments of the mapping participants of other age groups, and in the interviews with certain representatives of local authorities. In dis cussions of mapping participants from other age groups and in interviews with certain representatives of local authorities, the appraised view of youth is often saturated with social fears. This significantly limits the prospects for social adaptation and mobili zation of youth working in settlements—especially those returning from colleges and universities—hin ders the restoration of their social contacts, and pro vokes further retreatism among youth. Meanwhile, we see the following if we analyze the discussions of the mapping participants on the settle ment’s problems and ways to overcome them in what is said about responsibility during the discourse. The older and middleage groups, who raise significant questions for the settlement, implicitly assume that the responsibility for their solution will fall on govern ment authorities. In contrast, among youth, there are more often individuals who argue for sharing of liabil ity and partnership. This becomes evident in the rea soning of young mapping participants about business REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 5
No. 1
71
development, beautification, organization of leisure time, housing construction, dealing with troubled families and adolescents in trouble with the law, and even responsibility for creating conditions for the investment attractiveness of the settlement. In addi tion, active youth, having the potential to become an agent with the subjectivity and intention to participate in the development and implementation of projects, still considers local authorities as an outgroup with quite low credibility among young people compared with other age groups. Probably as a result of this, generational groups assess the possibility of cooperating with local author ities differently. Thus, if informants from the older age group preferably requested a social dialogue with authorities to draw attention to significant problems of residents, informants of the younger age group were preferably oriented toward real action. In turn, the authorities consider information the most important direction and method of interaction with residents. Certainly, when confidence in residents and for malized structures is more and more often based on knowledge but not identity, the problem of informa tion becomes important, but it does not defuse the problem of interaction in the system “residents— local authorities.” The differences in what the partici pants of interaction expect from its character also con tribute to this. Constructing a possible partnership, government authorities expect specific and qualified proposals from residents, while the population’s views on specific types and forms of interaction are very vague and require gradual clarification in social dia logue with local authorities. In general, the information obtained during the mapping from the viewpoint of the mobilization potential and the ability to influence the readiness to public participation can provisionally be divided into two groups. The first represents the information and opinions of the informants declared initially or formu lated jointly in working on the map. During the ses sion, they have direct influence on how the partici pants understand the social situation, on changing certain individual and group images and positions, and on readiness declared by the participants for fur ther participation in the project. The second group is the empirical material (facts, positions, and evalua tions) stated by the informants during the mapping, but requiring additional processing by researchers before its presentation and discussion by active resi dents at further stages of the project. Upon completion of the mapping procedure, the majority of participants expressed readiness to con tinue social dialogue and to participate in project activities to solve the settlement’s problems. Evidence of this was the participation of more than half the informants from Ordynskoye in further work on the mapping results and its presentation to various social groups during discussions and debates with members 2015
72
VAVILINA, SKALABAN
of the settlement’s administration, as well as during public hearings. The experience of joint mapping has shown that a map becomes informative only when it is created by residents with the participation of external modera tors—a third party independent of local authorities. The positions of moderators—that of “curious peo ple” who request details and explanations of what is happening—first makes residents the experts on their territory, then makes them responsible for its develop ment. It is possible to keep them in this position when carrying out the activity coordinated with representa tives of the authorities if the latter are interested in cooperating with residents. This method makes it possible not only to obtain initial information, but also to create among the par ticipants the appropriate attitude and orientation to further elaborate and implement the mechanisms for developing the territory and community by less expen sive means than mass surveys. It can be used in settle ments and areas where it is necessary to gauge people’s attitude toward ongoing infrastructure projects in order to assess the readiness of residents and authori ties to cooperate and create partnership conditions. The mapping process makes it possible to structure the understanding of resources, traditions of social participation, its sociocultural context, and points of conflict and social cohesion in the community, as well as to assess the prospects of dialogue between certain groups of the population and authorities. These data will help to answer questions regarding the effective ness of social investments, social projects, programs, and problems associated with their implementation. REFERENCES 1. Guijt, I. and Woodhill, J., Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E, Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2002. 2. Pokrovskii, N.Ye., Look, who came to us! Inevitability of strange world of globalization, in Kuda prishla Rossiya? Itogi sotsietal’noi transformatsii (Where Russia has Come? The Results of Societal Transformation), Zaslavskaya, T.I., Ed., Moscow: Mosk. Vysshaya Shkola Sotsial. Ekon. Nauk, 2003, pp. 338–348.
3. Lynch, K., The Image of the City, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1960. 4. Blaut, J.M., Stea, D., Spencer, C., and Blades, M., Mapping as a cultural and cognitive universal, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 2003, no. 93 (1), pp. 165–185. 5. Shalini, P., Vajjhala mapping alternatives: facilitating citizen participation in development planning and environmental decision making, PhD Thesis, Pitts burgh: Carnegie Mellon Univ., 2005. 6. Geertz, C., The Interpretation of Cultures, London: Hutchinson, 1973. 7. Semenova, V., Mapping of urban space: general approaches to visual analysis, in Vizual’naya antropologiya: gorodskie karty pamyati (Visual Anthro pology: Urban Memory Cards), Romanov, P. and YarskayaSmirnova, Ye., Eds., Moscow: Variant, 2009, pp. 67–81. 8. Anderson, B., Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso, 1991. 9. Stakeholder Engagement Strategies for Participatory Mapping, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2009. 10. McCall, M.K., Seeking good governance in participa toryGIS: a review of processes and governance dimen sions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning, Habitat Int., 2003, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 549–573. 11. Using participatory mapping to explore participation in three communities, Pathways through Participation website, June, 2010. 12. Klimov, I.A., Responsiveness of the authorities as the balance of sovereignty and social support, Sotsiol. Zh., 2006, nos. 3–4, pp. 69–88. 13. Glazychev, V.L., Yegorov, M.M., Il’ina, T.V., et al., Gor odskaya sreda: Tekhnologiya razvitiya. Nastol’naya kniga (Urban Environment: Technology of Develop ment: Handbook), Moscow: Lad’ya, 1995. 14. Zamyatina, N.Yu., Territorial identity: types of forma tion and images of the territory, in Identichnost’ kak predmet politicheskogo analiza (Identity as the Subject of Political Analysis), Moscow: Inst. Mirovoi Ekon. Mezhd. Otmoshenii, Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2011, pp. 203–211. 15. Etzioni, A., The Active Society, New York: Free Press, 1968.
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Translated by E. Bataeva
Vol. 5
No. 1
2015
